PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 4593600

Current trends and problems in health screening.

Abstract

Automation in clinical chemistry is a powerful tool. Like most innovations it is posing many questions as well as resolving some. Its use in population screening has led to questioning the validity of the old system of ;normal values' and to the search for better methods of indicating the significance of laboratory tests. This in itself is likely to have a good effect in that it is leading to a rigorous examination of the clinical value in diagnosis of the ever increasing number of laboratory tests.The ease and cheapness with which laboratory screening can be carried out is in itself a danger; it can readily lead to an increasingly large diagnostic effort but diminishing returns, including some inconvenience or even harm to a fair proportion of the people screened. It is, therefore, important to examine thoroughly, through population surveys and intervention studies, the validity of all novel forms of prescriptive screening, including those of clinical chemistry. Cheapness of testing needs to be examined in the wider context of the overall cost-effectiveness of screening.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Wilson. 1973. Current trends and problems in health screening.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.26.8.555

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Use of the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for rapid and reproducible molecular typing of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis is an economic and fast technique for molecular typing but has the drawback of difficulties in accurately sizing DNA fragments and comparing banding patterns on agarose gels. We aimed to improve RFLP for typing of the important human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae and to compare the results with the commonly used typing techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multilocus sequence typing. We designed primers to amplify a noncoding region adjacent to the pneumolysin gene. The PCR product was digested separately with six restriction endonucleases, and the DNA fragments were analyzed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for accurate sizing. The combined RFLP results for all enzymes allowed us to assign each of the 47 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae tested to one of 33 RFLP types. RFLP analyzed using the bioanalyzer allowed discrimination between strains similar to that obtained by the more commonly used techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which discriminated between 34 types, and multilocus sequence typing, which discriminated between 35 types, but more quickly and with less expense. RFLP of a noncoding region using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer could be a useful addition to the molecular typing techniques in current use for S. pneumoniae, especially as a first screen of a local population.

Autoanalysis↗

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.

We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade disease and productivity. The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides. In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy-confirmed high-grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS-screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%). In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high-grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high-grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides. Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS.

Autoanalysis↗